About your Search

20110701
20110701
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
where we are training security forces and where we are working to provide stability against the taliban and the kind of structure that we need to support going after al qaeda in pakistan and afghanistan -- that perhaps it is time to shut down $17 billion worth of money going to reconstruction projects when our track record really stings. i hope you all will convince me i am too cynical and angry and frustrated about the way we are spending money in theater. and i want to tell you, i am looking for good news and i hope we hear some today. there are too many people in missouri saying why can we fix this road, and then i look of the projects we are doing in afghanistan and it is very hard to explain to them why we can't fix that the road because we can't afford it -- yet we can throw money away in afghanistan on projects that were clearly not sustainable. and anybody spend any time thinking about it in the first place we would realize that. that kind of planning has to begin happening and that kind of accountability has to be present. senator portman is here. i will give him a time to get
is a real signal from the taliban and network they can go to a target right in the heart of the capital. if the karzai forces we've been training up can't defend -- they responded well in the emergency, we're told, but if they can't respond in kabul, isn't that a signal it's going to be a long haul, and maybe there is no legacy end of the tunnel? >> i think the reset of our afghan policy last week by the president was correct. i think it was long in coming. i was never a fan of the surge or the counterinsurgency doctrine. karzai is not a willing partner. last week this mumbai style shooting attack, it could have been worse. i would give the afghans a little credit, but it was staged by the hakani gnat wornetwork, protected group, protected by the pakistani government. that group comes over the border regularly, kills our troops and obviously now is prepared to shoot at big targets in afghanistan. it's a bad signal about how ready the pakistanis are to confront terror networks in their own country. >> jane harman from the woodrow wilson center, thank you very much. >>> and up next here,
of united states meetings with taliban officials and also what pakistan can bring to the table? pakistan has talked frequently about needing to have a seat at the table. what do you bring to the table? the americans have said you need to either sever your relationship for example with the haqqani network or bring them into this process. what can pakistan do in order to make this process work better? >> first of all, we support a reconciliation in afghanistan because we understand that wars essentially always and through some kind of reconciliation and talks anyway. so, the reconciliation process in afghanistan has to be led at the afghans. it is their country, and to bring to an and the eternal conflict in afghanistan that started after the departure of the soviets way back in 89. the soviets -- continued to hold on and after 1992 there was the famous war that brought the taliban to power. so we did not want in any way to intervene in the internal afghan process. it has to be an afghan-led process. we are very closely in contact with the afghan leadership. president karzai has visited pakist
's assessment is? the reconciliation in general, reports said the united states became taliban officials? and pakistan has talked frequently about needing a seat at the table. the americans have said you need to sever your relationship with the haqqani network lowered bring them into this process. what can pakistan do to make it work better? >> we support the reconciliation because we have understand the that wars always end through the reconciliation and talks anyway. the reconciliation process has to be led by the afghans. it is their country and with the internal conflict, and continued to hold the line and then there was the famous civil war. so we do not want to intervene in past abc's lead process and president karzai and our the jurors continually engaged with the leadership and koppel and afghanistan and the united states form the core group but they would slow the a engage others. it is one minute for me to play professor instead of ambassador. when the soviets left, regional powers adopt did different factions of those groups primarily to fight the soviet union. they created a
there are those -- >> were letters presented -- the letter sent by the taliban saying america's leaving in july, you better watch what you do, something to that effect? >> account identifier. >> would you agree the lisbon statement in 2014 was very helpful? >> it was. >> my question is, now that we've changed the strategy to withdraw timelines, have we sent the signal yet again of an uncertainty? it needs to be totality and commanders are renewed optimism and seems to be some of our allies going to iran and other places. my question is, do you believe that this more aggressive withdraw policy by the president has sent a signal of uncertainty or do you know? >> i think it's too early to tell, senator. >> rating affair. we're all pulling for you. let us know. god bless you all. >> you're in position. you do support that position, is that correct? >> i do. >> it is important that even though this apparently was mark pryor saved and general petraeus recommended, the military leaders of our country supports this decision newfield was an appropriate decision for the president to make. is that correct
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5